There’s a fun meme making its way around the internet. It’s called the 30-Day Song Challenge, and if you haven’t taken part in it yet, you’ve probably at least seen it on Facebook, Twitter or any of the other social-blogging sites. The idea is pretty simple: Every day for about a month, you answer one question from a predetermined list (below) with a YouTube link to a specific song. Many of the questions do require some thought, so it’s no lie to call this challenging.

I’ll confess that while I loved the idea, simply posting links got pretty boring after the first few days. So, I took the meme a step further and cobbled together the following two-part compilation video, complete with clips from my 30 songs and narration explaining why I chose each one. Thanks for watching, and enjoy!

Rima’s 30-Day Song Challenge: Part 1/2

Rima’s 30-Day Song Challenge: Part 2/2

Note that these are embedded Flash videos. I’d prefer to use YouTube for the sake of social sharing, but the site blocks some videos containing copyrighted materials from streaming, even when they’re well within the realm of fair use like these are. Nevertheless, as I always say, “When YouTube fails you, convert your MOVs to FLVs and host them yourself.” At least I can be proud of my technical troubleshooting skills!

Anyway, for the sake of anyone who wants to skip around (and, honestly, for search-engine optimization since I don’t have the YouTube coverage), here’s the full list of questions and my answers:

Day 1 – Your Favorite Song
Queen – “March of the Black Queen”

Day 2 – Your Least Favorite Song
Shinedown – “Second Chance”

Day 3 – A Song That Makes You Happy
The Rolling Stones – “Get Off of My Cloud”

Day 4 – A Song That Makes You Sad
Gary Jules – “Mad World”

Day 5 – A Song That Reminds You of Someone
Bunty Aur Babli Soundtrack – “Kajra Re”

Day 6 – A Song That Reminds You of Somewhere
Better Than Ezra – “This Time of Year”

Day 7 – A Song That Reminds You of an Event
Social Distortion – “Story of My Life”

Day 8 – A Song You Know All the Words to
Bob Dylan – “Subterranean Homesick Blues”

Day 9 – A Song You Can Dance to
Vanilla Ice – “Ice Ice Baby”

Day 10 – A Song That Makes You Fall Asleep
Radiohead – “Exit Music (For a Film)”

Day 11 – A Song From Your Favorite Band
The Beatles – “Revolution”

Day 12 – A Song From a Band You Hate
Nickelback – “Photograph”

Day 13 – A Song That’s a Guilty Pleasure
Naughty By Nature – “O.P.P.”

Day 14 – A Song No One Would Expect You Love
Johnny Cash – “Folsom Prison Blues”

Day 15 – A Song That Describes You
Charlie Schmidt – “Keyboard Cat”

Day 16 – A Song You Used to Love But Now Hate
Cee-Lo Green – “F*** You”

Day 17 – A Song You Always Hear on the Radio
Mumford & Sons – “Little Lion Man”

Day 18 – A Song You Want to Hear on the Radio
Massive Attack – “Teardrop”

Day 19 – A Song From Your Favorite Album
Queen – “Seven Seas of Rhye”

Day 20 – A Song You Listen to When You’re Angry
Dropkick Murphys – “I’m Shipping Up To Boston”

Day 21 – A Song You Listen to When You’re Happy
Save Ferris – “Come on Eileen”

Day 22 – A Song You Listen to When You’re Sad
Dave Matthews Band – “Grey Street”

Day 23 – A Song You Want Played at Your Wedding
Back to the Future Soundtrack – “Earth Angel”

Day 24 – A Song You Want Played at Your Funeral
Death Cab for Cutie – “I Will Follow You Into the Dark”

Day 25 – A Song That Makes You Laugh
Key of Awesome – “Angry Birds”

Day 26 – A Song You Can Play on an Instrument
Top Gun Soundtrack – “Top Gun Anthem”

Day 27 – A Song You Wish You Could Play
Eric Johnson – “Cliffs of Dover”

Day 28 – A Song That Makes You Feel Guilty
Rick Astley – “Never Gonna Give You Up”

Day 29 – A Song From Your Childhood
Kenny Loggins – “Footloose”

Day 30 – Your Favorite Song at This Time Last Year
Cascada – “Evacuate the Dancefloor”

And most importantly, how do you feel about your family members, potential employers and the entire world, for that matter, having access to your answers to these questions?

Last month, the planet’s largest social-networking site launched “Facebook Questions,” a tool that allows users to post questions and answers as easily as a status message. The feature is advertised to users as a way to “get answers from the people [they] trust.” Notably, access to this data gives companies an incentive to advertise via the site, which in turn is fiscally beneficial to CEO Mark Zuckerberg and crew.

The problem is that unlike every other feature Facebook has rolled out, this one comes with no privacy settings. And why would it? Your answers mean nothing to companies if you won’t share them.

As with other Facebook applications like Photos and Events, there is no way to turn off Questions. … You should only ask and answer questions that you are comfortable sharing with everyone on Facebook as the questions you have participated in are visible to everyone.

So, that’s it. Your cousin asks you, “What do you think about those gosh-darn hippie vegans?” and you jokingly respond with an answer that, if acted out, would land you in prison. Soon, the world will know what a jerk you are. There goes that amazing job you applied for—and that second date with the cute girl who thought you were just so sweet and sensitive.

But don’t rush to delete your Facebook account just yet. There is one solution that might not save you from Google Cached for awhile, but it will clean up your profile and make you the presentable Mr. Charming you once were. From the FAQ;

You cannot edit the text of your questions or posts, but you can delete any of your questions or posts as follows:

If you have asked a question:

To delete your question, go to the question box and click the “Delete” button which is located in the lower right of the box.

To delete question options that people voted on, go to the question box and click the “Edit options” button which is located in the lower right of the box. Then, you can delete individual options by clicking the X beside them. Please note that deleting a question option will also delete any associated votes for that option.

If you have provided an answer:

To delete a post you provided as an answer, go to the question box and find your post within the “Posts” section. Then, click the X to the upper right of your post to remove it.

To remove your vote from a poll, go to the question box and click the “Unvote” button which is located in the lower right of the box. If you voted for multiple options, just uncheck each of your votes to remove them.

The lesson: There is no such thing as privacy on the internet. If you wouldn’t want your grandmother to see it, you’re better off just not posting it.

If you’re one of the 8.5% of human beings who have Facebook accounts, you’ve probably noticed that the social network released a new photo-heavy profile format last month. Until now, users have had the option of sticking with the “old” profile that itself is only months old. Over the next few days, Facebook will migrate everyone over to the new format.

According to Facebook developer Josh Wiseman, the new profile makes it quick and easy for users to learn about their friends’ personalities, interests and activities.

According to Wiseman:

The profile begins with a quick overview of basic information such as where you’re from, where you went to school, and where you work—?the kinds of conversation starters you share with people you’ve just met or exchange with old friends as you get reacquainted.

And since there’s often no better way to learn about a person than through photos, the profile now includes a row of recently tagged photos of you. In my case, my profile features pics from my engagement and wedding, two of my life’s most recent and happiest moments.

Here’s what Wiseman’s profile looks like:

Of course, you might not actually want your recently tagged photos to appear front-and-center on your profile page, especially if you hang out with a serial-photographer who also happens to be a Facebook power user. *innocent whistling* What do you do then?

In case you’re wondering, this is what my personal profile looks like right now:

If you don’t have Photoshop or similar software, or you just want to make the whole process simpler, never fear—there are plenty of sites out there that will create your image hacks for you. Check out this great service from Schweppes:

When we saw Tracy Morgan (“Saturday Night Live,” “30 Rock“) last month, he spent several minutes throughout his set flirting with the women at our table and making fun of the men. At the end of the night, he shook our hands and thanked us for coming to see him. It was great! The fan-celebrity interaction added immensely to our enjoyment of Morgan’s already phenomenal performance.

And so when Black came out last night, smart phone in hand, and read my Tweet to the audience, my heart began to race. He asked me to raise my hand so that he could find me, and when I did, he laid down on the stage and looked deeply into my eyes. Resting his chin on one hand, he spoke sweetly into the mic: “So whacha wanna talk about, hmm?”

Black leaped up and exclaimed to the audience, “Oh, so she gets on Twitter and asks me to talk to her like Tracy Morgan did [emphasis his], but when I do she has nothing to say!”

The crowd swelled with laughter. It wasn’t so much what Black said that was funny, but more the idea that he’d broken down the fourth wall to bring a lowly fan up to his level as the show’s star.

The hilarity didn’t end there. Black called me up on stage twice during his performance, and at one point he actually left me there by myself while he went off to get me a bottled water.

So, I did what anyone in my position would do: I called the Bob Ross-looking guy at the table next to mine up to take my place.

When Black returned, he scowled at the bearded man and said, with a surprised whimper, “You’re not Rima. [Pause] You’re the ‘Joy of Painting‘ guy.” He then turned to me with mock disgust: “Did you think I wouldn’t notice?”

Amid more laughs from the audience, Black transitioned seamlessly into some incredibly funny prepared material for his final 20 minutes on stage. And at the end of the night, people seemed to want to talk to me almost as much as they wanted to talk to him.

What a rush.

Old Spice Goes Viral

Michael Ian Black isn’t the only celebrity taking advantage of social networking.

Last month, Isaiah Mustafa, better known as the “Old Spice Guy,” surprised fans by producing more than 150 short YouTube videos in under 24 hours. Each clip beautifully mimicked Mustafa’s popular Old Spice ads, with their lofty metaphors and hilariously grandiose monologues about power, strength and abdominal perfection.

With a proposal like this, who wouldn’t say yes?

Mustafa and a team of writers, marketing gurus and tech geeks selected their favorite fan questions via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites. They then quickly put together scripts and props for Mustafa’s responses and somehow managed to produce and publish quality videos almost as quickly as fans could watch them.

The Old Spice crew even helped a fan propose to his girlfriend, as you can see in the video at right. (She said yes.)

Bridging the Gap Between Celebrities and Their Fans

I spoke to blogging pioneer and author of Get Seen: Online Video Secrets to Building Your Business, Steve Garfield, earlier today about how social networking has brought celebrities and their fans closer together. Garfield, a jack of all trades when it comes to new-media tools, is by all accounts a regular guy who doesn’t regularly hobnob with A-list celebrities. But he is resourceful and, as his book title implies, he knows how to “Get Seen.” Garfield has gotten the attention of a lot of famous people, and at present keeps in regular contact with the likes of Saturday Night Live alumnus and late-night host Jimmy Fallon.

Here’s an excerpt from our conversation.

Q: How have sites like Twitter and Facebook influenced the ways celebrities and their fans interact?

A: Social networking has really made it easier for celebrities to communicate with their fans. In the past, celebs had to get a Web guru to create a stand-alone site and set up bulletin board systems, and things like that. It was a struggle. But now, third-party sites like Twitter allow fans to share ideas with and talk to these celebrities. And the celebrities have the opportunity to talk back without having to know the first thing about creating a Web site.

Q: Tell me about Jimmy Fallon. At first, you were just a fan of his, commenting online like other fans. Now you talk all the time, and Fallon is even a prominent interviewee in your book, Get Seen. How did that happen?

A: Jimmy Fallon is the perfect example of a celebrity who has embraced social networking. He started a video blog and I commented on it. Then he mentioned me in another video blog post. Jimmy asked for videos, and so I made a video. And then he mentioned it, and so forth. So, we got little relationship going and I met him at the Consumer Electronics Show. I got to interview him there, and the next thing you know, I had VIP tickets to see his TV show. He even invited me backstage. Now we regularly communicate back and forth over Twitter. It’s so easy to communicate this way, and I think celebrities find (or should find) these communications valuable.

In the book, I interview Jimmy Fallon and we talk about interacting with the fans. He wants to set up “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” so that he can do just that. I also interviewed Gavin Purcell, Fallon’s producer, who talks about how they are working to make the audience experience more interactive.

Q: That’s fascinating. Have you found other celebrities who are open to interacting with fans online?

A: Definitely. I was just in the Bahamas and I saw the band Tears for Fears. They put on a great show. I shot some video of them, but I was really at a loss as to where to put it because of all these recent take-down notices from record companies asking fans to not put copyrighted materials on the Web.

So, I found the lead singer Curt Smith online and I Tweeted to him asking if I could put clips of his Bahamas show on YouTube. Within minutes he tweeted back at me sure, “the more the merrier“!

That would never happen without social media.

Q: So what advice do you have to fans who want to get in touch with their favorite stars, or who want to use the power?

A: The Internet and all these new-media and social-networking tools like Twitter have leveled the playing field and made celebrities more accessible. With celebrities having millions of followers or fans, it sets the expectation that a famous person might not see your comments, but there’s also the possibility that they will. Jimmy Fallon asks for responses and reads them. Recently he asked Late Night viewers to use a specific phrase in their Tweets, and then he shared his favorite responses on the air. That kind of interaction is fun.

People who want to get their favorite celebrity to notice them really only need to reach out. Celebs are just people like the rest of us, and they often check search results for their names on Google and Twitter, just to see what people are saying. If you have something interesting to say to them or ask them, do it because they might just respond back.

Steve Garfield’s video of Tears for Fears, live at the Oracle Club Excellence at the Atlantis (Bahamas) on July 30, 2010.

Curt Smith, lead singer of Tears for Fears, was pleased with the video and elected to share it with fans via Twitter.

Tell me, readers: Have you ever met or spoken with anyone famous thanks to the Internet? Share your stories below!

Facebook marketing guru Randi Zuckerberg estimates that the social-networking site will reach the half-billion user mark sometime next week. Barring duplicate accounts, that’s 1/13th of the planet’s population, and it means that there will be more Facebook users worldwide than there are Buddhists. (sources: 1, 2, 3)

Though we had an official photographer, one of my favorite pictures from our wedding came from my friend and former radio co-host Matt Williams

To commemorate this milestone, the site will launch “Facebook Stories,” a collection of short, user-submitted blurbs about how Facebook has changed our lives.

According to Zuckerberg (sister of CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg), a “Facebook Stories” Web page will list selected tales by location and themes such as “finding love,” “coping with grief” and “natural disasters.” Each story will be limited to just 420 characters, or the maximum length of a status update.

You can submit your own story via a simple form. And, if your story becomes popular and gets more “likes” than most stories, it could be featured on the site for all to see.

Here’s the story I submitted:

FB turned my wedding into a social-networking event! When we got married, we had a full “wedding week,” typical of my Indian people. Several of our friends photographed everything–sangeet, chura, various parties, our two (Hindu and Lutheran) weddings, our reception, etc.–and promptly uploaded their pics. One of the best gifts I received was an inbox full of loving comments from those who couldn’t attend.

What kinds of stories would you submit?

July 21, 2010 Update: Be sure to hit up http://stories.facebook.com and vote for your favorite stories! You can “like” mine here–that is, if you really do like it.

Facebook product manager Sam Odio announced this week that his team is testing face-detection technology on photographs uploaded to the site. It’s not as Big-Brother as it sounds–at least not yet. The feature is simply designed to streamline the photo-tagging process, which allows users to link images of friends and family to their own Facebook accounts.

If you own a newer digital camera, you’ve probably noticed that it displays a little square over your subject on the view screen as the lens brings the subject into focus. If there are people in your shot, the camera will try to find their faces so that you can get a clear image of your friends rather than, say, the table in front of them.

Image courtesy Facebook

The technology works similarly on Facebook, except it’s designed to help you label photos you’ve already taken. It cuts out a lot of tedious and time-consuming clicking on the users’ part by determining for them if an object in a given photo is a human face. It then pops up a little box where the user can simply type an auto-detected person’s name. If you don’t yet have access to the new functionality, here’s what it looks like (at right).

It’s only a matter of time before developers refine the facial-recognition algorithms to detect and tag friends’ faces for you. And from there, who knows what this could mean for the continuing battle between privacy advocates and those in favor of information sharing on the internet?

I’m not a big proponent for either side of the debate. Sure, I want my privacy, and I want owners of the sites I use to be honest and forthright about what they plan to do with my information, but I also don’t have a whole lot to hide. I obey the law, I don’t go to wild parties, and my life, in general, is kind of boring. Additionally, I’m a realist: If I don’t want people outside of the Web to know my deepest, most personal thoughts, then I won’t share them online either.

Even still, I have to admit it’s all kind of creepy. I mean, why did Facebook have to advertise wedding-related products and services when I was engaged and then, as soon as I changed my relationship status to “married,” why’d they have to start advertising baby stuff?

I felt pressure from Facebook to start having kids before my own mother even started on about it!

But, I digress.

We all know that Facebook already advertises products to us based on our interests, age, gender, relationship status, and so forth. Yet one wonders what else they’ll do with it, particularly now that developers are slaloming down the slippery slope of tagging us with information we might not want to share, potentially by recognizing who we really are versus whom we might claim to be.

Facial-recognition technology already exists and has a number of applications. The FBI has used it to find bad guys, and now American police officers are doing the same. According to various recent reports including this one from The Daily Mail, any officer with a smartphone could feasibly fight crime through photography:

Police in the US are using an iPhone app to take photos of suspects and instantly compares them with a criminal database.

The app employs biometric information such as facial recognition software to help police identify suspects within seconds.

Known as MORIS (Mobile Offender Recognition and Identification System), the system lets police officers take a photo of a suspect, upload it into a secure network where it is then analysed.

Maureen Boyle of The Enterprise newspaper in Brockton, MA, produced the following video about the iPhone app for the paper’s YouTube page:

Back to social networking: If you’re a criminal and you’re dumb enough to put pictures of yourself on Facebook, you deserve to get caught. But what about those of us who are innocent? Should the authorities be able to comb through our information just because they can? Intellectually, I’m inclined to say “yes” because I’ve got nothing to hide, and I’m all for chasing bad guys. But part of me wonders how this is any different from illegal wiretapping or spying. Something just doesn’t feel right.

It’s good to be king. Or, at least it would be if your rivals weren’t trying to assassinate you at any given opportunity. But that’s how it goes when you’re head honcho on the internet, where users can be as fickle as fashion and everyone knows it.

A few days ago, Digg founder Kevin Rose Tweeted and then quickly deleted some intriguing (though not particularly surprising) gossip:

Rose hasn’t commented further on the could-be social-networking site, but his post is ironically still visible through Google’s caching feature, which has preserved the snippet for prosperity.

The Tweet has created juggernaut of rumors and speculation, and now others are coming out of the woodwork to confirm that “Google Me” is very real.

Former Facebook executive Adam D’Angelo posted the following today on his own site, Quora:

Here is what I’ve pieced together from some reliable sources:

* This is not a rumor. This is a real project. There are a large number of people working on it. I am completely confident about this.
* They realized that Buzz wasn’t enough and that they need to build out a full, first-class social network. They are modeling it off of Facebook.
* Unlike previous attempts (before Buzz at least), this is a high-priority project within Google.
* They had assumed that Facebook’s growth would slow as it grew, and that Facebook wouldn’t be able to have too much leverage over them, but then it just didn’t stop, and now they are really scared.

Now, Google has tried and failed at creating the “next big thing” in social networking a handful of times already. Buzz is useful, but who do you know who uses it? What about Wave? And Orkut…? Well, I’ve said everything I need to say about Orkut already. (See “Why EVERYONE Loves Facebook” / March 28, 2010)

That said, I don’t doubt Google’s abilities to give people what they want. They still run the best and most-used search engine on the internet, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

So what must “Google Me” do to win over Facebook’s user base?

Here’s what I think:

Guarantee Privacy: Users will only take so many months-long privacy fiascoes before finally jumping ship. Facebook needs to accept that while people love to share, they also love the freedom to choose what they’re sharing and with whom. I understand the temptation to sell our information to advertisers, but just don’t do it. A happy user is a loyal user.

Don’t Enforce Awkwardness: Remember the good old days before the internet when we could simply avoid the people we didn’t want to talk to? We were communications ninjas: “Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed your call”; “Did you come by? I wasn’t home.” Now, if we don’t want to be someone’s pal anymore, we have to declare it. We must “ignore” their friend requests or, if they’re already our Facebook “friends,” we have to physically delete them. It’s all so drawn-out and dramatic. And don’t even get me started on the concept of “frenemies.” (See “My Social Media Blackout: Confessions of an Addict” / April 18, 2010)

If Google can create connection tiers (acquaintances, coworkers, friends, family, etc.) and make it easy to create privacy settings specific to these different groups, I’ll be the first to sign up. Sure, you can do this through Facebook to some degree via “friends lists,” but the feature can be difficult to use. Plus, because Facebook calls everyone a “friend,” someone you barely know might be offended when they realize you’ve hidden your wall from them. It’s not particularly logical, but it’s true.

At least with tiered connections, you’ll have the chance to set your boundaries with people from the beginning.

Don’t Be Creepy: If I want to connect with my junior-high band director’s uncle’s neighbor, I’ll find him myself. Don’t get all creepy on me and search through my connections’ connections’ connections for people I probably have no desire to “friend.”

Don’t get me wrong: This recommended friends thing is a great idea on paper. But at the very least, give me the option to disable it if I don’t like it.

Last week, University of Maryland researchers found that college students who swore off social media and texting showed signs of withdrawal similar to what drug addicts experience after quitting cold turkey. Sound familiar? Here are some highlights from their “Day Without Media” experiment:

Students use literal terms of addiction to characterize their dependence on media.
“Although I started the day feeling good, I noticed my mood started to change around noon. I started to feel isolated and lonely. I received several phone calls that I could not answer,” wrote one student. “By 2:00 pm. I began to feel the urgent need to check my email, and even thought of a million ideas of why I had to. I felt like a person on a deserted island…. I noticed physically, that I began to fidget, as if I was addicted to my iPod and other media devices, and maybe I am.”

Students hate going without media. In their world, going without media, means going without their friends and family.
“Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort,” wrote one student. “When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable.”

And here I thought I was going crazy; that my dependence on social media was a sign of some yet undiagnosed psychological problem. But if I’m nuts, then so are you. And so are America’s youth.

This week, New York’s Riverdale County School ran a two-day experiment similar to the Blackout, prohibiting middle school students from texting, IM-ing, and engaging in any kind of social media. As you might predict, the kids suffered varying levels of anxiety during the study. But they survived, and they were better for it.

This text-free Sunday, the Riverdale students said, was unusually relaxing. They were shocked at how quickly they finished their homework, undistracted by an always-open video chat, or checking in on Facebook or responding to the hundred messages they typically get in a day. … “I had to look for things to do,” said [student] Zachary, who ended up watching a movie with his mother.

A movie? With his mother? Even for a young teen, this really shouldn’t be a last-resort activity. Family bonding should be commonplace.

When you have down time, your activities might include landscaping the yard. We did just that on Sunday.

This leads me to some of my own conclusions:

Since I ended my Blackout more than a week ago, I’ve found myself being more cautious about my social-media postings: links, photos, videos, status updates, private notes, private and public blog entries, etc. I find myself checking Facebook and Twitter a few times per day, but this is nothing compared to my previous almost constant use of these sites. I actually now set aside specific times for goofing off.

I’ve made good on my word to not use my iPhone in the car, except for important calls. (Remember that I’m the passenger, not the driver.) I can tell that this was probably my biggest vice, as I’ve seen more of this town in the past week than I have in an entire year of living here. I’m still ill about the time I wasted just waiting for pages to load.

I no longer feel a constant, nagging compulsion to check my favorite sites “simply because” the opportunity exists. Why pick up my smart phone when I can grab a book, spend more time with my husband or go for another run with the puppy? Why debate politics through my fingers with friends-of-friends when I can have rousing, in-person conversations with people I actually know?

Over the past week, I’ve found myself filled with creative energy. I’ve become even more productive at work, and have ended up with a lot more down time. (That I was so productive before the blackout still baffles me.)

We used some of this down time to landscape the yard this weekend (see image above right). I also try to use the time to read up on corporate policies for renovations, management and modifications, so now I’m not just thinking weeks ahead, but months. I hope that this will translate into greater career success.

Finally, I feel, for lack of a better term, more… alive. Life becomes very two-dimensional and gray when you’ve got your faced shoved into a computer screen all day. Any time away from the technology translates into reconnecting with people, animals, trees, society, and good old-fashioned mortal existence.

I will always be the News-Geek, the multimedia nerd who loves to create, to teach, and to connect through all kinds of new media. But even geeks need moderation. And for once, I’m ok with that.

In a previous entry, I mentioned that I would be taking part in The Next Great Generation’s Social Media Blackout experiment. The rules were simple: Participants had to spend 48 hours completely unplugged from their various social-networking vices: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Digg, etc.

It’s actually not this simple.

I took the challenge a step further and did away with unnecessary Web surfing altogether. I even banned myself from using my iPhone for checking e-mail in the car. (I couldn’t get rid of e-mail completely as I needed it for work.) Since my husband, Steve, does all of the driving, I didn’t want to put myself in a situation where I could spend entire car rides playing with my phone.

I decided to chronicle my experiences as an internet luddite. Surprisingly, I learned a lot about myself in the process:

Day 18:57 a.m. – We’re in the car on the way to work and my fingers are twitching like I’m some sort of addict. (And maybe I am.) This is prime e-mail-checking time and my hands don’t know what to do with their new-found freedom from iPhone enslavement.

Suddenly, I realize I haven’t Tweeted about the blackout experiment, so I start digging through my purse. How can such a small bag be so cavernous? Finally, I find my phone and start typing as fast as I can. Like Indiana Jones grabbing his hat before the stone door shut forever in Temple of Doom, I manage to get my Tweet in before my 9 a.m. cut off. It’s going to be a long 48 hours.

11:02 a.m. – It’s been a busy morning, but I’m back at my desk now. I’m starting to realize just how much of my typical day is spent goofing off online, and it’s kind of scary. So how on Earth do I manage to stay so productive? I have no idea. I just know that I’ve been plugged into the Internet since I was 14–that’s half of my life–and it didn’t prevent me from graduating college with high honors, researching/writing a 153-page masters thesis in less than a year, or gaining some pretty successful career opportunities at NOVA Online and Boston University.

I’m not even bored right now and I definitely have work to do, yet the compulsion to “just check” all of my different sites of interest hits me every time I sit down. In a split-second, my mind thinks “Let’s go to Facebook–wait, I can’t do that; Twitter! Nope, can’t do that either; Flickr! Sorry, not happening…” etc.

My phone is ringing. Saved by the bell.

12:16 p.m.. – It’s almost lunchtime now, and one of my clerks is standing at my door, going over this morning’s crazy events. (At our hotel, every morning is sprinkled with a touch of crazy.) I look up at her as she talks, neither of us realizing that I’m absentmindedly typing “facebook.com” into Firefox’s address bar. I get as far as entering in my password before I notice what I’m doing.

What’s wrong with me?

I exit the browser as a guilty feeling builds in the pit of my stomach. That was close.

For the record, I do realize how absurd this sounds.

2:05 p.m. – I notice that every time I sit down to get a little computer work done, my cursor drifts toward the Firefox icon. It’s happened at least 10 times today already–probably more. I’ve actually stopped counting.

Steve shot this with my iPhone. I fully admit that in a moment of weakness, I asked him to upload it to his Facebook account. He declined.

I’m beginning to see that my problem isn’t really the conscious desire to connect with people, but something more deeply ingrained in who I’ve become. I’ve spent most of my formative years online. The compulsion to surf is like muscle memory, hardly any different from walking around without realizing on any conscious level that I’ve even stood up.

I’ve been following the same internet routine for 14 years. The sites have changed, but the habits remain the same. I wonder if I’m now hardwired to be a geek.

3:42 p.m. – My subconscious is getting clever. I’ve had a little bit of down time this afternoon and without realizing it, I’ve been taking actions that, if completed, would require me to log into Facebook. About 20 minutes ago, I started thinking to myself, “I’ve got some time–why not experiment with some potentially useful code for my blog?”

It just so happens that I’ve been planning on implementing Facebook Connect features that would allow people to comment on News-Geek via their Facbook accounts. This would prevent users from having to go through the hoops of registering or retyping all of their personal information to post to this site. It’s all about convenience, right?

Wrong. Well, sort of. It’s partially about convenience, but today it’s also about having an excuse to log into Facebook. I can’t implement this feature without getting an application programing interface (API) key, a unique Facebook-generated identifier that will allow users to interact with my site. I’ll have to play with this functionality another time.

5:45 p.m. – It’s after work and we’re running errands. I still don’t miss my social networking sites, but I do find myself thinking about them frequently. Every time I get into the car, I have to remind myself to not reach for my phone. So, I stare out the window–and wow, it looks like there’s a new tattoo/massage/goth attire/head shop just outside the really nice part of town. How the hell did that get there? And when?

I thought that being plugged in kept me informed, in the know, aware–and it does. It keeps me in touch in the world. But what about my own backyard?

6:28 p.m. – I cooked with quinoa for the first time tonight. I have the urge to take a picture of the tasty meal with my phone and to Tweet it, but only as a passing thought. Current realization: I am incredibly lame.

9:45 p.m. – I’ve enjoyed a nice, quiet evening with Steve and our puppy, Herbie. I’m grateful because I’ve learned I’m not so attached to the internet that these nights aren’t common. In fact, it really feels like any other night, only I’m not mindlessly playing with my iPhone every few minutes. For the first time today, I don’t feel like an addict.

Day 26:00 a.m. – We’re going into Nashville today and I don’t want to get up. My usual morning ritual begins with my alarm, followed by at least 15 minutes of Web-surfing via my phone as I wipe the sleep from my eyes with my free hand. Unfortunately, staring at the ceiling doesn’t have quite the same waking effect. I begin wonder how impractical it would be to get a coffee maker for my nightstand.

6:45 a.m. – It’s hard to disconnect when so many aspects of your real life and social-media life are intertwined. I haven’t given up e-mail because I have a lot of work information saved in messages and drafts.

I notice that there’s a “3″ beside the Google Buzz link underneath where it says “Inbox.” That’s way too convenient. I don’t click on “Buzz,” though, because it’s the Valhalla of social networking. It all too easily aggregates your activity on sites like Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr, and shares it with other Buzz’ers (and vice versa).

When did we all go meta? And why?

I understand the need to reach our entire potential audience, but no one cares (or should care) enough about what I say to be willing to read the phrase “I just had my first glass of soy milk since leaving Boston” three times across three different sites.

1:30 p.m. – I see an NRA poster that reads “Insure Your Gun Rights!” I cringe. My inner grammar Nazi wants to take a picture with my phone and upload it to Facebook along with some sort of snarky “fail” caption.

Once again, it’s more reflex than desire. I realize how obnoxious it is to nitpick a poster. I don’t even dislike the NRA or disagree with a lot of what their less paranoid members stand for. I find out later that insure/ensure faux pas wasn’t a one-time mistake. They’ve got the phrase all over some reading materials and this Web site.

I twitch a little.

I wonder: In an addiction scenario, would my iPhone be the dealer or just an enabler?

4:42 p.m. – It’s a long drive home, and in between conversations with my husband, I wonder what my frenemies are up to. (A frenemy is someone who pretends to be a friend but is actually an enemy. I argue that in the social-networking world, the term should extend to rivals who maintain a continued interest in one’s life or vice versa, regardless of whether the two parties even speak. Online, you don’t have to talk to someone to legally and secretly keep tabs on them.)

We are the millennial generation, sometimes called the “net” generation. I believe that we all passively stalk people from our past, simply because we can. The only difference between us and creepsters with restraining orders against them is our motivation. While conventional “stalkers” are driven by obsession and a side of chemical imbalance, we’re just curious. Any malicious intent on our part could be likened to what you might feel during a class reunion: We want to ensure that we’re happier and more successful than our frenemies, and we want to see if they’re as lame/sketchy/weird/mean as they were when we still spoke to them.

In the interest of full, embarrassing disclosure, I admit that I have a couple of frenemies I check up on every few months. I know for a fact that many of my friends, acquaintances, former students and employees do the same.

I’m fairly certain that this is why the various social-networking sites won’t add a “see who’s looking at your profile” feature. Can you imagine the drama that would ensue if you suddenly learned that your proctologist, who isn’t even your Facebook friend, looks at your account more than your wife does?

10:30 p.m. – I’ve enjoyed another great evening in with Steve and Herbie. I don’t really want to go online at this point.

Day 37:24 a.m. – I wake up with the realization that this hiatus is almost over. I feel guilty, like I really shouldn’t go back to life as I knew it two days ago. If you do the math, a minute here and a minute there can add up to hours wasted online.

I want to keep fasting, but I also want to publish this post and share it across my various social-networking accounts. I want to connect with others out there who can relate to me and to this entry.

I’ll compromise: I will go back to my sites, but I’ll limit my use. There will be no more idle surfing in the car, and conversations with real, physical people will have to trump internet usage altogether. This means that if I’m at a restaurant with my husband, I will not grab my iPhone at any point as we wait for our meal.

12:55 p.m. – I’m publishing this blog entry. I haven’t been to Facebook or Twitter yet. I suspect I’ll have a lot to catch up on, but I think I’ll have some lunch and pick up around the house first.

Spreading like wildfire across my and my Indian friends’ social-networking pages is Tunku Varadarajan’s latest commentary in The Daily Beast, which delves into some negative stereotypes we’ve created for our own people. The piece, benignly titled “Why India Loves Facebook,” suggests with all the sensitivity of a rabid dog that we Indians are a bunch of nosy braggarts who believe it’s our gods-given right to examine and judge the actions of everyone we know–and to over-share our own lives’ most inappropriate details.

Varadarajan writes:

[S]hould we think of Facebook as yet another canvas on which the Indian etches himself into an entwined crowd? One can see this art of connection on display on many Indian Facebook pages, where seemingly private conversations are conducted in a wide-open space. “I sacked the maid,” an Indian “friend’s” recent status update said. “Anyone know how I can find another fast?” “Should I wax or thread?” another asked, provoking, like the first questioner, a torrent of responses that other cultures might regard as intrusive or presumptuous.

To be honest, I’m not really keen on the thesis here. I don’t mind the stereotypes (more on that later), but I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to use these stereotypes as an explanation for why any particular demographic enjoys connecting and communicating via the Web. Sure, Indian Facebook users love to tell people what they’re doing and to read about what everyone else is doing! Isn’t that the curry-eatin’, chai-drinkin’ point? It’s social networking; this is what Facebook, MySpace, and Orkut are for. (You remember, Orkut, right? If not, you might be living out the American stereotype of only caring about things that matter to America: Orkut is Google’s answer to Facebook, and while it thrives in places like India, the long-awaited service actually bombed in the States. But, I digress.)

There are about 1.2 billion people in India today. Of those, only 13 million use Orkut, while a scant 4 million use Facebook (Source: ComScore). Even if you count Indians worldwide and include those of us who live in the States, Varadarajan himself estimates that only 8 million of us are on Facebook. To give you some perspective, more than 275 million Indian citizens use mobile phones. Not all of our billion-plus people are Slumdogs hanging out at the Temple of Doom. (Talk about stereotypes!)

But back to why I don’t really mind Indian self-stereotyping: This might be an unpopular stance to take, but I believe that a lot of generalizations–particularly those that groups come up with for themselves–have at least some basis in truth. Why would we make this stuff up if we didn’t see these traits in our friends, our families, and even ourselves? I mean, most of the stereotypes that other groups have created for us have been pretty great: Everyone seems to think we’re all brilliant doctors and engineers who are genetically predisposed to academic success. We’re exotic, our food is fabulous, and above all else, we can dance.

So, I don’t disagree with Varadarajan’s assessment that social networking really jibes with Indians’ disdain for privacy and boundaries because when it comes to generalizations, you have to take the good with the bad. I do, however, disagree with his suggestion that this disdain is somehow unique to us. I seriously doubt Indians’ interest in social networking, which really is somewhat modest given the figures above, has anything more to do with cultural traits than with human ones.

Take a look at the frequently updated social-networking mockery sites, Failbooking and Lamebook. Maintainers of both sites seek out the most inappropriate, foolish, weirdest, creepiest content from the likes of Facebook and Twitter, and compile them for the rest of us to see so that we may join in them in pointing and laughing at the blurred out faces and scratched out names.

Here’s an example:

This mass ridicule is nothing new. Back in the days before social-networking sites, when more internet users socialized via chat rooms, sites like Bash.org sprang up to bring us comic gold like this:

Josh: QUESTION FOR EVERYONE....
SecureXeC: IT'S TO THE LEFT OF YOUR 'A' KEY.

All of these sites are based in The United States, one of the most racially and ethnically diverse nations in the world. All content is user-generated, and despite Failbooking’s halfhearted attempts at concealing names and faces, it’s quite apparent that this content comes from people from myriad walks of life.

The truth is, we’re all just a bunch of voyeurs with exhibitionist tendencies. If we weren’t, social networking would fail and Facebook, once run out of a dorm room, wouldn’t be worth the whopping $11 billion it is today.